Modern people seem to be amazingly superstitious, don't you think?
Probably it is due to the permanent overestimation and underestimation of human abilities. For example, people constantly underestimate how many hardships humans can physically endure, how often they heal on their own if they can live under the right conditions. One constantly overestimates the technical possibilities, which from my point of view has precisely to do with the fact that the scientific theories, which seem to deal predominantly with pathologies and weaknesses, are presented to one as "solutions" for weaknesses that were already not really present in the first place. And which have to do with the underestimation of human healing ability, strength, cleverness and peaceful co-existence. The one conditions the other.
Those who do not believe in themselves, who do not find confidence in themselves, are always dependent on "the higher", who believe in a saving God - or, not to sound unfashionable - in higher authorities that replace God or parents. The atheist, whom you call leftist here, is in this respect just like the theist, both minds believe in salvation from above.
So anyone who attaches himself to an authority can be the healer, the bringer or the saviour: a doctor who gives an "unquestionable" diagnosis and prescribes a treatment plan, the politician who promises prosperity "for all", the egalitarian who pretends that everyone is equal before the law, and so on.
In the meantime, I still doubt every scientific theory that currently offers itself as a consensus or is considered to be set in stone. The more it is defended, the more sceptical I become.
In my observation, such faith in authority has produced - for example - ghostly places, such as housing estates, where you no longer see people on the streets, where the gardens are ugly and deserted, where everyone squats at home and is afraid of life, of what the neighbour thinks of you and more such nonsense.
It all has to do with one's own view of the world or of humanity. The other day I asked a very old friend of mine if she believed that people had to be forced to obey. She said "yes" because "people are too inconsiderate and thoughtless and won't obey rules unless they are imposed." From then on, any conversation I had with her was idle. What else is there to say?
Those who do not believe in themselves, who do not find confidence in themselves, are always dependent on "the higher", who believe in a saving God - or, not to sound unfashionable - in higher authorities that replace God or parents. The atheist, whom you call leftist here, is in this respect just like the theist, both minds believe in salvation from above.
Agreed. Not being religious myself, I can see the advantage of having a God (as an authority - rather than one being of human origin)
Leaving aside 'establishment' religions and thinking in terms of genuine spirituality - there is - in my mind - a definite correlation with them and moral standards / ethical behaviors - which are prerequisites for stable society.
Atheism does not promote that same 'reverence' to 'morale/ethical code' - as any authority is merely another human.
It's not perfect by any means - but if 'a higher' being is necessary for a functioning, not authoritarian community - so be it.
Depressing - but relevant - I think your friend has a point! lol....history would bear this natural 'sheep like' tendency repeatedly occurring , among large groups..
I agree with you here that spirituality is different from institutionalised religiosity. If I see a spirit in every thing, subject or object, I want to treat such a thing with respect.
Yes, depressingly, my friend seems to be right, though this seems to be her conclusion from herself to others. If I thought I had to be forced to be a respectable person, I would think the same of others. So I also conclude from myself to others and call it a positive world and human view. I am convinced that people would behave rationally if they were convinced of their own rationality. Which they are not. Those who feel stupid, incapable and unlovable draw the wrong conclusion that others would be too. But the most screwed-up thing about it is that someone to whom I said this, namely that he lacked self-love, would never ever admit such a thing, and so he of all people thinks he is reasonable who does not want to admit to self-contempt.
There is a difference, for example, between being non-conformist because I love to do something and do it in a strangely different way and being non-conformist because I want to give the world the finger.
So it's possible that my friend also thinks I despise myself and that my self-confidence could be a form of self-deception and that I'm just imagining that my nature is actually optimistic. I am not beyond doubt, but I would never stress what a nice person I am. If this combination is recognisable, as in the case of my friend, that she believes of herself to be a nice person and on the other hand speaks of the necessary compulsion on her fellow human beings, I am anything but convinced.
For me, the path to self-knowledge definitely leads over one's own shadow. If I deny that I have dark sides, that I definitely have moments of cruelty and carelessness, I run away from this realisation and take refuge in an illusory world that only pretends to respect or consider anything worthwhile. But there is nothing. Only the fear of really living. And as a consequence, of wanting to be protected from all such evil - by others, "wiser", "higher".
I do not prefer a name for the divine, because only through that which I cannot explain nor name does the spiritual spark jump over. In my experience, analysis and spirituality do not go together. I do experience the spiritual, but I cannot communicate it to anyone or even explain it in any way. Every attempt makes the matter somehow pathetic. Art seems to me to be the only thing that best conveys the inexpressible.